421 down in Alabama

wabower said:
I trained at FSI for several years and don't think they ever taught that procedure. Full power on a turbo'd engine is something in the neighborhood of 40" and simply not necessary for most phases of flight other than go-arounds, which would be iffy at best for a heavy airplane.
Click to expand...

Makes sense - I've been hearing alot of talk lately about how the typical accelerated ME pilot mills flying 150-200hp planes teach folks to mash everything forward and then a guy will graduate to something bigger and the natural instinct in an emergency is to do what he was trained to do.
 
wabower said:
I trained at FSI for several years and don't think they ever taught that procedure. Full power on a turbo'd engine is something in the neighborhood of 40" and simply not necessary for most phases of flight other than go-arounds, which would be iffy at best for a heavy airplane.
Click to expand...
It's generally advisable to advance the power significantly until the dead engine is identified and feathered if you're going to cage one. Attempting to identify which engine has quit while descending at low power could easily lead to feathering the only engine that's actually producing power. In addition, with a windmilling prop along with deployed gear and flaps, it's likely to require full or nearly full power just to remain on the GS with one engine and it's better to use more power than needed for a little while than to sink below the GS.
 
gismo said:
It's generally advisable to advance the power significantly until the dead engine is identified and feathered if you're going to cage one.
Click to expand...

But you don't need to firewall it like most pilot mills are teaching.

If you are in cruise flight, throwing the throttles forward is bad form.

One techinique that I picked up when I started training in bigger twins like the DC-3 and B-25 was to call for the next higher power setting. In other words, if I'm in cruise flight, I'll select climb power. If I'm in the climb, I'll call for takeoff power....etc. Works very well and doesn't add more stress to an already stressful situation and I've adapted that techique to flying the little twins now.
 
wabower said:
My worst sim experience was trying to land on the carrier. Never touched the boat. Navy pilots must know something I don't--like how the hell you're supposed to do it.
Click to expand...
Ya got to remember that the boat is moving (usually something like 15-20 kts)....and it is NOT moving in the same direction that you are lining up to land.
 
You have me scratching my head Lance. In the many instances they've killed one on me once established on the GS at SIMCOM, I've just done a normal approach. I do have to bump power up just a bit, but not a lot. We haven't even feathered one if we could just stay on the GS. One may have to add quite a bit to find out which is out to feather the correct one. I don't even try; just continue down and make sure I don't get under the GS. Of course, one is committed to land. I certainly don't firewall the throttles.

Best,

Dave
 
Same here, and during my three actual shutdowns in the airplane, all contained an element of "airplanes don't play fair and the scenario you're faced with wasn't covered in the sim or in the checklist" so some deviations from the canned procedure seemed to make sense. For example, if the engine is running really rough (back home they would say it's shaking like a dog passing a peach-seed) and you're pretty sure it won't generate full power, do you cage and feather or leave it idling in order to get whatever you can from it if the situation deteriorates further?

Staying on speed and on the desired glidesope, whether VMC or IMC is my number one priority, and too fast is probably as bad or worse than too slow, based on the accident stats regarding over-runs and attempted go-arounds.

Dave Siciliano said:
You have me scratching my head Lance. In the many instances they've killed one on me once established on the GS at SIMCOM, I've just done a normal approach. I do have to bump power up just a bit, but not a lot. We haven't even feathered one if we could just stay on the GS. One may have to add quite a bit to find out which is out to feather the correct one. I don't even try; just continue down and make sure I don't get under the GS. Of course, one is committed to land. I certainly don't firewall the throttles.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
gismo said:
It's generally advisable to advance the power significantly until the dead engine is identified and feathered if you're going to cage one. Attempting to identify which engine has quit while descending at low power could easily lead to feathering the only engine that's actually producing power. In addition, with a windmilling prop along with deployed gear and flaps, it's likely to require full or nearly full power just to remain on the GS with one engine and it's better to use more power than needed for a little while than to sink below the GS.
Click to expand...

I think Lance is referring to gear and full flaps, which in the planes I fly is a significant difference from approach flaps - and why I don't do full flaps until the runway is made.

As Wayne and Dave have pointed out, when on the GS, it's probably inconsequential to identify it or not so long as you're committed to land. At that point, I would be about 99% of the time. To do otherwise would be inviting making a bad situation worse.
 
Reviewing the Simcom training maual confirmed some of the things we have discussed and refreshed my memory on some others.

After engine failure above Vmca, the check list calls for

"Operative Engine .. . . adjust power as required before securing inoperative engine.

A procedure is published for single-engine go-around, with the warning that an OEI go-around may not be possible under certain weight and atmospheric conditions, and should not be attempted after wing flaps have been extended past 15 deg.

Ted DuPuis said:
I think Lance is referring to gear and full flaps, which in the planes I fly is a significant difference from approach flaps - and why I don't do full flaps until the runway is made.

As Wayne and Dave have pointed out, when on the GS, it's probably inconsequential to identify it or not so long as you're committed to land. At that point, I would be about 99% of the time. To do otherwise would be inviting making a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ted: I don't put full flaps in until I have the runway in sight (I know that doesn't meet the FAA standard of a stabilized approach, but that's what I do). If I was on the GS, the gear would be down at the FAF and I'd have approach flaps in. At SIMCOM, we decided not to lower the gear or put in approach flaps if on one engine before being on the GS past the FAF: why add the drag? Of course, one has to put the gear down before landing which we would do once we had the runway in sight.

We didn't put approach flaps in because we didn't want the added risk of a possible asymmetrical flap approach (very low probability in the Baron, but why risk it).

So, one case if you lose one before being established on the approach; another in this case where he was descending from the flight levels with one out.

Best,

Dave
 
wabower said:
"Operative Engine .. . . adjust power as required before securing operative engine. .
Click to expand...

Am I reading this correctly? Why would one secure the operative engine <g>
Does that mean you reach out and touch it for still working while you set up an approach <g>

Best,

Dave
 
You've seen me in action, and you know damn well what it means. The short version is that it means Okies and typewriters never were a real good combination.

Dave Siciliano said:
Am I reading this correctly? Why would one secure the operative engine <g>
Does that mean you reach out and touch it for still working while you set up an approach <g>

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Ted: I don't put full flaps in until I have the runway in sight (I know that doesn't meet the FAA standard of a stabilized approach, but that's what I do).
Click to expand...
I never put in full flaps in the C-320 unless I had the runway made, and that was with both engines running. I would never even have dreamed about trying a single-engine go-around in it.
 
Well! I can't believe you don't follow the FAA's requirements for a fully stabilized approach from the FAF in <g>.

Didn't we have this discussion last time you visited Addison?

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Well! I can't believe you don't follow the FAA's requirements for a fully stabilized approach from the FAF in <g>.
Click to expand...
:rofl:

Dave Siciliano said:
Didn't we have this discussion last time you visited Addison?
Click to expand...
Seems like we did. :)

In the Sovereign we solve the whole stabilized approach problem by landing with flaps 15 when we are single-engine (full flaps are 35).
 
Everskyward said:
:rofl:

Seems like we did. :)

In the Sovereign we solve the whole stabilized approach problem by landing with flaps 15 when we are single-engine (full flaps are 35).
Click to expand...

Imagine how many problems we could have solved if we hadn't been scheduled to fly the next day and had a couple margaritas. Worlds problems might have ended :D

Best,

Dave
 
Everskyward said:
I never put in full flaps in the C-320 unless I had the runway made, and that was with both engines running. I would never even have dreamed about trying a single-engine go-around in it.
Click to expand...

Me neither, it's a very poor option.... Much better to keep one's head well clear from one's rectum and make sure you end up at the bottom in a survivable situation.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Ted: I don't put full flaps in until I have the runway in sight (I know that doesn't meet the FAA standard of a stabilized approach, but that's what I do). If I was on the GS, the gear would be down at the FAF and I'd have approach flaps in. At SIMCOM, we decided not to lower the gear or put in approach flaps if on one engine before being on the GS past the FAF: why add the drag? Of course, one has to put the gear down before landing which we would do once we had the runway in sight.

We didn't put approach flaps in because we didn't want the added risk of a possible asymmetrical flap approach (very low probability in the Baron, but why risk it).

So, one case if you lose one before being established on the approach; another in this case where he was descending from the flight levels with one out.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, that sounds pretty much how I would do it. I also agree with Wayne's adjusting the operative engine before securing inoperative in most conditions.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Dave, that sounds pretty much how I would do it. I also agree with Wayne's adjusting the operative engine before securing inoperative in most conditions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, from cruise, why not. In cruise it may be a while before I secure it, I'm gonna try a few things to get it going first. Stabilize, analyze and act.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, from cruise, why not. In cruise it may be a while before I secure it, I'm gonna try a few things to get it going first. Stabilize, analyze and act.
Click to expand...

Yep. Cruise is nice, you have lots of time. No need to rush and end up making a bad situation worse.
 
denverpilot said:
Maybe the real problem developed around 17,000 and he squawked 7700? Just a data thing, perhaps?
Click to expand...

That's a great observation... I'm reasonably certain FlightAware would lose your track if you changed your squawk code.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
That's a great observation... I'm reasonably certain FlightAware would lose your track if you changed your squawk code.
Click to expand...

So, here's a question. If you are on an IFR flight plan talking to the controller and you have to declare an emergency, do you change your xpdr to 7700? I would think not. Seems like there is no real purpose or advantage. ATC already knows who and where you are. In all of the ATC recordings I ever heard with pilots declaring emergencies, they always seem to keep their original squawk or a squawk given by ATC (not 7700).
 
Fearless Tower said:
So, here's a question. If you are on an IFR flight plan talking to the controller and you have to declare an emergency, do you change your xpdr to 7700? I would think not. Seems like there is no real purpose or advantage. ATC already knows who and where you are. In all of the ATC recordings I ever heard with pilots declaring emergencies, they always seem to keep their original squawk or a squawk given by ATC (not 7700).
Click to expand...


None of the times I declared was I asked to change my squawk. From what I've been told the 7700 code sets off bells and whistles and flashing bolded text to make sure it's noticed. If I'm already talking to them, I agree it seems pretty superfluous. I think it's mostly if you're 1200 and not talking, although I imagine if you're on with NY approach during a push, it may help get a word in (although you could just go 121.5 as well). Pretty much when you declare, ATC isn't going to do something that increases workload or causes distraction with no benefit. They're actually pretty good at reducing workload.
 
Last edited:
Do you remember the American Eagle incident here at D/FW where they were low on fuel and asked to come straight in? D/FW controllers declined permission for special handling. The AE pilot was asked if he was declaring an emergency and said he was but the controller didn't notify his supervisor (and it was kind of iffy)? The plane didn't get special handling and almost ran out of fuel.

In the investigation, a recommendation was if one declares an emergency to tune in 7700 so there is no question: anyone wondering will know and anyone who hasn't been informed will immediately see it is an emergency.

I've heard a couple folks tell center they had a problem but never declared an emergency. Few weeks ago, fella in a single said he was losing an engine. Everyone else just kept talking; it was awhile before he could get back on frequency. He said again he was losing an engine but didn't declare an emergency. Other folks just kept checking it etc. until center asked if he had a problem and directed him to the nearest airport.

If I had an actual emergency, 7700 would get tuned in quickly. If I lost one and got it shut down with no other problems, I might not declare, but this fella did.

Best,

Dave
 
The issue of squawking 7700 was also tackled by NTSB in its report of the famous landing on the Hudson. The pilot was 'slightly' faulted for not tuning 7700 but it was considered understandable due to general overload.
 
I had a total electrical system failure while IFR enroute OJC-ADS. After developing a plan (get on the ground as soon as possible and notify ATC, which is what center wants you to do, rather than all the last-last-last mumbo-jumbo in the regs) I had to decide whether or not to declare. The next question was "if so, to whom?" since I was NORDO due to the electrical failure. So I delcared the emergency to myself, descended to MOCA, found an airport and landed. They were happy to know I was no longer fouling their airspace and commended me for safely solving the problem. RVS tower seemed pleased as well.
 
Fearless Tower said:
So, here's a question. If you are on an IFR flight plan talking to the controller and you have to declare an emergency, do you change your xpdr to 7700? I would think not. Seems like there is no real purpose or advantage. ATC already knows who and where you are. In all of the ATC recordings I ever heard with pilots declaring emergencies, they always seem to keep their original squawk or a squawk given by ATC (not 7700).
Click to expand...

The only advantage I could possibly see is if "your" controller is too overloaded with your emergency to give a "point-out" to an adjacent sector. Hopefully the supervisor is on top of that.

7700 would make you "blossom" on the adjacent sector whether the controller/supervisor pair had time to do the point out, or not.

That's pretty far-fetched as a "need" though. Someone mentioned the NTSB picking on the pilots about it in the Hudson corridor... I could see that.

If you're Enroute over the middle of nowhere talking to ABQ Center, and one controller is handling 300 or more miles of airspace, it'd probably just annoy him/her. Ha.

VFR is of course, a different matter if you're not already talking and squawking.
 
olasek said:
The issue of squawking 7700 was also tackled by NTSB in its report of the famous landing on the Hudson. The pilot was 'slightly' faulted for not tuning 7700 but it was considered understandable due to general overload.
Click to expand...
Had things not worked out so well the pilot would probably have been faulted not so slightly for that oversight.
 
gismo said:
Had things not worked out so well the pilot would probably have been faulted not so slightly for that oversight.
Click to expand...

Missing the ditch switch would have been a much bigger deal, IMO.
 
Henning said:
Would someone just finally shoot Phelps and his retarded kin? They're kinda a disgrace to the human race, maybe just put them in a zoo somewhere.
Click to expand...

Funny...that was my first reaction as well. This has gone waaay too long - guy seriously needs some lead poisoning.
 
I'll admit to knowing it, and use it often when emphasizing how things happen and why you back up the flows with the check list and can still miss important things.

denverpilot said:
ROFL... They did. Was your joke too subtle, or did you not know they forgot it?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top